Contents

I apologise for offending. Is there a particular reason you want the categorisation in this very unusual manner? If you tell me then I won't make the same mistake. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hi Tm, you refilled that category shortly after I moved the content following this discussion. Please voice your objections there (use English if you want). Viele Grüße, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Please stop adding irrelevant categories just to make a point such as you did here. If you don't know what you are doing, perhaps you shouldn't do something. - Takeaway (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "Per statement below. Reason of block is false. Blocking administrator is an evolved part, abusing his powers to win an argument, again, like last time, where is block was overturned"

Also before you acuse me constantly blocked for edit warring, better to refresh your memory, since last May, when you blocked me and was unblock for this was an unfair block, there is, again the list of my blocks and unblocks since 2010:

Instead of going all the way to 2010, as it is long ago (and i´ll admit that until 2014, maybe some blocks were partially or totally proper).(...)

Also, now you block people by stealth? No warning template telling about the block. Dont wont the publicity and scrutiny of your actions? Did i need to try and edit to see that i was blocked? Rules and policies are for others, but not you? Your again abusing your administrator power and using the block hammer to win a argument?

You claim that you blocked me because of "Disruptive edits after warning - has been blocked previously for the exact same behaviour)"? What disruptive behaviour, as anyone can see that your actions were not correct the last time. Take note that i´ve removed your "warning" as, contrary to what you claim,
Your (and mine) edits were discussed the last time on this talkpage and in the Village Pump, and after that i was unblocked, as the block was unfair, uncalled, overburden. If you have a edition difference discuss, like i did last time, instead of make empty threats.

Not wanting to argue, like last time, you reverted again, with no discussion. If your personal preferences are to have a smaller text, readd the text as an original flickr description under a colapsible table and some short text about the shooting, as there are templates for that. But no, you just block to win an argument and by stealth now. Tm (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - you knew that this edit would get you blocked, so why would you request being unblocked now you invoked your block on purpose? In May 2017 it has been made very clear to you that these edits were unacceptable. Yesterday you vandalized 5 files again. As a courtesy, I reminded you about the earlier warning, in an attempt to withhold you from getting yourself blocked. You removed that message. That removal is not a real offense, but it was rather dumb. If you would have taken my message serious, you would not have been blocked now. An edit like this one cannot be explaned as anything else than vandalism, given the fact that you are not a newby. You are disrupting the project on purpose and your unblock request gives zero trust that you are willing to stop the disruption. Jcb (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment @JCB What warning, last time? Now also you call me a vandal? Your warnings were empty, per other users statements in this talkpage and Village Pump, and so the block was overturned.

Anyone that reads sees that your block and deletion of text was not unanimous and that my actions that not constitute vandalism or blocking ofenses. Other users also said that you were an involved part and used your administrator powers in a abusive away, that your deletion of 100% of text was not productive, etc. Read again the last discussions and see that your statement that "In May 2017 it has been made very clear to you that these edits were unacceptable", is clearly false, as if there were people that were in favour of the deletion of the text, others were against in part or totally. Statements like "the description that has been blanked contains a fair amount of information about the decisions of the photographer. It may have been long, but it was not pornography, nor totally gratuitous or promotional, so cutting it out completely, to leave a description so trivial that it is almost meaningless, is not good practice. If this was edit warring, it was pretty mild and a week is excessive, especially as the defended edits are far too sweeping, so not fully defendable", or ""There are too much long unnessery description. Commons is not anyone's personal blog, where s/he tells the story behind her/his click." this is personal judgement, and blocking to enforce your judgement when you do not have a consensus is a problem. we have deleted personal files with long descriptions as out of scope, but that was after a deletion discussion. rule by dictation reflects poorly on this project. not engaging in a consensus process tends to undermine the authority and credibility of this admin." or "The blocking administrator was involved, as rather than protecting the file temporarily from edits, and thereby by-passing any drama, they entered into the edit-war, chose which side was "right", and then blocked Tm for reverting their "sysop" edit. No administrator should be acting to block other users where they have chosen to take action that makes them a direct party to an incident. Tm may be considered admonished, but Jcb has a lesson to learn from this case as to how to remain sufficiently independent and when to defer action to fellow administrators. I suggest Jcb let other admins take the call on whether Tm should be the subject of admin actions in the future."

For last, the unblocking comment "Between the statements you gave above the unblock template, and the comments made by other users, I think an unblock wise. (I came here because the blocking admin left a request at COM:AN for review by an uninvolved admin.) As it's been more than four years since your most recent edit-warring block, aside from those that were overturned, I don't think this block length is reasonable; if you deserved a block (no opinion there), the block length you've experienced is a good deal more reasonable for what you did, and if you didn't deserve it, of course unblocking you quickly is the only appropriate course of action."

Where is this last discussions, is a unanimous agreement for the previous block or an unanimous decision of your deletions or a warning about a next block? Where is written, by others, that there is a red line? Specially whe there is an DR open on them, and the original text gives a complete context about scope, personality rights and the context of this image, and thats why the text on the five files were readded? Tm (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Support block - (Edit conflict) Sorry Tm I honestly hate to do this .... but this edit was utterly silly, Descriptions should be short and to the point ..... Jcb was kind enough to warn you first[1] but you reverted them with "This is your own preference, that you enforce with your administrator hammer. Your reversions are not based in rules or policies like was stated last may on village pump and this page. I removing your removing your statement, like you do in youtalkpage"[2] ..... Instead of saying "I understand and will stop" you instead reverted without a care in the world and so even I would say your file descriptions and then your actions here are disruptive editing,

Also I want to point out removing talkpage messages isn't a blockable offense but your lack of understanding on the matter is concerning Tm, Unfortunately I support the block. –Davey2010Talk 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment@Davey Did you see that this files are on a deletion request? Thats why i´ve readded the original text as it shows where and who has photographed. This gives context to personality rights, notability about the model, the kind of photography, etc. If the text is long, make some colapsible templates, dont delete the context of the file. JCB is only trying to impose his vision, and so is an involved part. And take note that in the last discussion JCB actions were not unanimous and was clearly an involved part so much that he asked an involved administrator to review the block, and voila i was unlocked. (see the reasons above on my reply to JCB)

I did but as you were warned about it in 2017 you shouldn't of added it this time, Or if you were adding it you should've put "Adding long description as file's up for DR" and then if you were reverted then you should've gone straight to Jcb's talkpage and discussed it, I honestly have a lot of respect for both you, Jcb and Fae but in my eyes I personally think the block was justified sorry :( –Davey2010Talk 21:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment @Davey2010: Please point to the so called warning, on the listed discussions. Where is written, by other than Jcb, the so called warning. Per the discussions, the block was reverted and no warning was given. Prove me wrong and show that there was a warning, by other than Jcb, an involved party. And care to explain why, if Jcb reasons were solid proof, why was the block overturned, per reasons above, quoted from the original unblock reasoning of the uninvolved administrator. Tm (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The initial warning by Moheen Reeyad is here. And the unblock of the previous block, after more than 48 hours, was according to the above mentioned statement rather done because the 48 hours seemed to be enough for the facts. Now you are repeating the same facts, it's logical that it will be longer this time. Jcb (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The link you give (as i did previously) is not a warning but a discussion. And your block was overturned, so your warning was and is invalid. That is a fact. The unblock reasoning does not support your block, be it in time or reasons.

If you do not care to quote the reasons to unblock, and not twist them to your own POV. If short one is dubious ("Mistake upon original block; reducing to time served"), the the long one, does not support that i was unblock for having passed 48 hours, as you claim. The text is ""Between the statements you gave above the unblock template, and the comments made by other users, I think an unblock wise. (I came here because the blocking admin left a request at COM:AN for review by an uninvolved admin.) As it's been more than four years since your most recent edit-warring block, aside from those that were overturned, I don't think this block length is reasonable; if you deserved a block (no opinion there), the block length you've experienced is a good deal more reasonable for what you did, and if you didn't deserve it, of course unblocking you quickly is the only appropriate course of action.""

To keep short, The unblock reason says that I think an unblock wise (...) if you deserved a block (no opinion there), the block length you've experienced is a good deal more reasonable for what you did, and if you didn't deserve it, of course unblocking you quickly is the only appropriate course of action.". In here where is said that i was unblocked for time served? Did he said that i deserved the block? Them why the text "if you deserved a block (no opinion there)". Was the block reverted for reasons of time served? Them why the phrase and if you didn't deserve it, of course unblocking you quickly is the only appropriate course of action.. 48 hours was the reason, as you claim?

Support Unblock. Jcb is involved, this is one of several recent occasions where Jcb has used sysop tools when involved. In addition the block was procedurally incorrectly managed as Tm has highlighted. Administrators are required to provide a block reason, failing to do so for an established user like Tm is incomprehensible.

Sysop tools must never be used to "win" a revert war. --Fæ (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your misleading comment. But no, I am not an involved party here, as I clearly pointed out to you the previous time. And no, I did not forget to enter a block reason, the evidence is in the block log. And it was very clear to Tm which edit caused the block. Jcb (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you have to say about the opinion of other administrator that he was an uninvolved admin, and so, i infer, that you were an involved admin. And also why did the uninvolved admin reverted your block, after you asked for a review? The reasons can be seen above?

Will you still continue to be stubborn and keep an invalid block, for procedural, contextual and substantive reasons. What policies support your block? Quote them. What policies support your removal of text that gives context to a file beyond a generic and abstract description? Or as the last time, you will show that your blocking to win an argument, contrary to policy, and so abusing your power. Tm (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: Please avoid being sarcastic, it is unbecoming of an admin who is using the sysop tools against other long term contributors and has been challenged for doing so incorrectly.

As BP states, "For blocks based on disruptive behaviour, such as vandalism, repeated copyright violations and manual promotional activities, ensure that the user has been appropriately warned, preferably using a block warning template."

Your statement "I did not forget to enter a block reason, the evidence is in the block log." is confirmation that you failed to follow the basics of COM:BP. The automated log is not a replacement for providing a block notice, failing to do so in this case appears either incompetent or a deliberate use of the sysop tools as a weapon in a personal argument. --Fæ (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You are well aware that the user was warned appropriately several times, you are just ignoring it. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment Where is the blocked template on this talkpage, where was a warning, be it now or the last discussion, given by an uninvolved administrator other than you? Where is a warning of a possible block by an uninvolved administrator other than you?. Where are my actions vandalism? Where is in the policies support your vast removal of in scope and contextual text of descriptions of images and calling me a vandal? Tm (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have ignored nothing. Your bad faith is astonishing. Comply with COM:BP, and remove your bad block of Tm. You are clearly involved and you have unambiguously failed to comply with the simple basics of COM:BP that any new administrator would do. Considering your years of experience, it is almost impossible not to conclude that your use of sysop tools in this case was as a weapon in an argument. --Fæ (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The history of File:It's Just Like Watching 3D (22417200813).jpg, by itself, is sufficient for me to agree with this block. You replaced an ordinary description page with a massive amount of text that isn't one bit appropriate for a file description page; I can understand a newbie making this mistake, but when someone with 10+ years' experience does it, that's obviously intentional. And note the eight separate "follow me on this website" links: that's spam, and we block newbies who post it. Seeing that it's at DR, I could maybe understand you doing it for context and then self-reverting (so you could provide a link to the diff at DR and wouldn't have to explain what it would look like), but retaining it and reverting the person who removes it demonstrates that you were trying your best to keep this inappropriate content on the filepage. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment @Nyttend: The text was not added by me. It was the original description, deleted by Jcb to a generic and abstract description of "Photograph of a model in underwear". What do we now with this information, beyond what is visible in the images? Nothing.

The original text, be it long, at least had a full context of who this model is, where were this images taken and the conditions of the shooting. Or do you think that text like "The images I managed to capture last time were some of my favorites ever, though we were limited somewhat in our choice of context. Each and every image was shot in the same corner of the same front room...not a lot of room for context or difference. So this time, I decided to book us a suite at a Plymouth hotel, to see what contextual images I could capture this time. (...) She what I don't think I mentioned in my last write up of her, and something that I don't think many would work out, but Courtney is a Page 3 girl. Yes, thats right; for both The Sun and The Star. (...) So having picked her up from her house, we made the slow drive through the myriad of traffic towards the seafront and the hotel. The Grovesnor Hotel was located right on the edge of the sea and I am pretty sure we were the only two "guests" in it that day. (...) The hotel room featured a beautiful bay window that you can see behind Courtney in a lot of the images and also reflected in her dazzling eyes that had changed colour in the natural light. (...) The sun was out and peaking in through the curtain, so I took the opportunity to overexpose the images somewhat, allowing the highlights to become ever so slightly blown with her eyes picking up the highlights." This highlighted text gives a context to the image, not shown in the current text.

Also If you agree with the previous block, then why did you reverted the last block, when the situation is the same as this block?

Jcb, an involved user uses his administrator blocking tools to close discussion, when there is a open DR, where this text is important to show that images are clearly in scope. Why i reverted to the original text now, after almost a year? I´ve readed the original text only to the 5 images that are in DR, to give this context and Jcb unilaterally reverted, without asking why i did this, making only threats.

If the text is unnecessarily wrong, cut out what is irrelevant (like how did the travel to the hotel ocorred, what did they spoke after the shoot and the (rotten) links to the social media of this photographer. But deleting the all context of this image is making a deservice to the context and scope of image and in particular context of the open DR. Tm (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if you originally added them or not; the point is that you restored them, when they definitely didn't belong for the reasons I gave. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Davey2010 and Nyttend; many of the links in the descriptions Tm restored are very dangerous. They are trying to forward the user to other sites, trying to run unknown scripts, offering fake messages that you are selected for a prize! I afraid my system is affected with virus by opening them. Jee 04:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: So the location where this images were taken, why were the images were taken the way they were taken, and who this model is and the kind of work she does and so this images have no personality rights problem, these "they definitely didn't belong for the reasons" you stated? Good to know that the descriptions that are generic and abstract are kept, outside of rules, by an abusive administrator, Jcb that blocks others trying to improve the descriptions.

The same user that blocks others users for diferences about opinions, like he did a few days ago and was reverted. If he did not agreed with my re-addictions, why did he, instead of asking why and try to discuss this, did he made a threat, not based in any policy, them blocked me without warning on the talkpage (as stated per policy), for one readding of 1 description, in one image. The the original text was readded because of the DR, and i´am blocked for. But JCB, the blocking administrator can call others trolls without a suffering a block, be it for a few hours. Good to know that i can be called a vandal by the same administrator that calls others trolls, when the other users ask him simple questions about his actions. Dont believe me, see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_68#Harassment_by_Jcb and the block and unblock logs. Also act of @Jcb: calling trolls to other good faith users. Where is his block for harassement and insults? Or is it that the administrators are above the rules? Tm (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment And what i find amusing is that Jcb, the blocking administrator is not open to discussion, but instead blocks left and right, but a mere user pings ALL the users inbolved in the previous discussion. Just to take note of whom wants to discuss and who doesnt. Of whom blocked without warning on the talkpage, trying to escape scrutiny. Who is the one that insults others and had several deadministration processes for abuses. Who is the one that is constantly reverting others peoples comments asking to clarify his administrative actions. Who is the one that calls some small countries clownish. And who is the one that is blocked and who is not. Tm (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Jcb does not abuse his administrator powers? And i´am expected to talk to such an abusive administrator, that has once remove for abuse of power (albeit 7 years ago) and has 3 in 28 requests for de-adminship or around 10% of it (1 successful in 2011, another unsuccessful in 2011and another in 2016. Talking to someone that blocks all users that dare to have a different opinion than his. (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment @Jcb: what, as an administrator, you have to say about your of double standards. When, in November 6 2017, an user wrote in your talkpage "So this request is just trolling by Jcb", you accused him of calling you a troll, and you said that " If I would not have been the subject of this behaviour, I would have pressed the block button by now, so that they can cool down". But, 2 days before, you did the exact same thing. Or do you claim that by writing "Remove trolling", you are not calling a troll to other user. Why did you not impose a self block? Why the double standards? Are you above the rules, that you impose on others? An insult is an insult.

Care @Colin:@Jkadavoor:@Moheen Reeyad:@Fæ:@Davey2010:@Slowking4:@Nyttend:@Tuvalkin: Anyone interested in explaining the reason of double standards by Jcb above. Why was he not blocked, by his own statements. Or if he is called a troll, the other users should be blocked, but when he calls other user a troll he shouldnt be blocked. Tm (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

support block User clearly disrupting the project. If there is text in that wall of promotional material that supports the DR, then one can link to the history or take the time to quote relevant parts. It is clearly promotional, clearly unsuitable for Commons (rather than the guy's blog) and Tm knows this. As expected, many of the comments made above by two parties are grossly inaccurate and misleading. Tm was warned, did it anyway, and got blocked. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment As explained the original text is way more informative than 5 words. Edit the original to remove the promotional material, dont delete 100% of the text, for all the reasons stated above. Jcb as usual is using double standards. Also where are the so called "comments (...) grossly inaccurate and misleading". Care to quote, or have the frontality of saying who are the "two parties", instead of making hearsaying?

You were warned here. Jcb quotes this diff. You quote this diff. Yet both you and Fae claim "no warning template". You were warned. So, are we going to argue over the word "template"? I thought we didn't "template the regulars", or is that the other project? Inaccurate and misleading. You, me, Jcb, Fae and everyone else in this room knows there is some appropriate text you could include on the File description. More than is currently there should someone care to expand it. You, me, Jcb, Fae and everyone else in this room knows the text you restored is inappropriate for Commons. And in fact, the text you restored is more likely to make folk vote delete, whether supported by policy or not. You knew your edit would inflame things, was unwarranted, was likely to lead to Jcb blocking you, and you did it anyway. Go sit out your block and stop playing games. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

don't know why you would appeal this block. this admin has all the blocking behavior, lack of self-reflection, and credibility of INC. and the tl;dr on this talk page proves it. just do not interact with the trolls, their sphere of destruction is limited. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Jcb (talk·contribs) has a reputation of an edit warrior similar to Tm’s one. Too late to block Jcb now, but on the next instance he should be blocked for no less than one week.Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Support unblocking with the hope that Tm will follow community norms. I see that many editors I hold in high esteem, Colin, Davey etc opposed this unblocking. Tm, your edits were clearly disruptive and any passing admin would have block you. So, the noise that you were blocked by an involved administrator (user:Jcb) is pointless and further raises concerns on your understanding of the problem. Please, don't do this next time. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Support shortening the block. While Tm action was disruptive, User:Jcb was involved and should not take decission about the block. There was no nees for urgent action, IMO. Blocks are intended to protect project of disryuptive actions, not to punish users. I do not think the block to be still necessary. Ankry (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am NOT an involved party. The initial warning was by a different admin and I stepped in to stop an ongoing behaviour after that initial warning. As for shortening the block, we normally want to see a promise by the blocked user that they will refrain from the behaviour after being unblocked. Such a promise is absent. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Incnis, see the discussion from may 2017 where Tm was edit warring with other editors on the same collection of files. The Image you link above had the inappropriate text removed in 2016 by Ironholds ("remove crud"). Other files had the text trimmed in May 2017 by Acabashi. Moheen Reeyad is also involved as they uploaded many of them (and appears to support the trimmed text). Tm is alone in deliberately restoring text that nobody thinks should be on Commons. That he picked a file that previously wasn't edit warred on isn't important. To my view, the warring was so inevitably likely to lead to a block by Jcb that one can't help concluding that he was set up, and took the bait of this tag-team trap. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I misjudged the case based on several irregularities, such as this incident when (another) sysop ascribed “vandalism” to Tm following disputes about mass edits. Now I see that Tm clearly acted against supermajority here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ankry, I see nowhere in this discussion that Tm accepted that their edit is inappropriate. Further, there is a tone that they will repeat it. For me, they can be unblocked on the moment they accept the mistake and agree that it will not be repeated. Jee 02:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

(Non-involved admin observation) There seems to be support for unblocking you, or otherwise shortening your block, if you agree to discontinue this practice. While I am not going to ask that you admit a mistake is made, are you willing to agree to not repeat these actions? ~riley(talk) 05:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@~riley: could you define which these actions? Rants about admin’s banhammer in edit summary are certainly a bad practice because discourage regular discussion; the same is true about use of elevated privileges to further his/her point. Or are you speaking about restricting Tm’s additions to {{Description}}? Or about edit warring against other Commons members? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ranting about admin's in edit summaries is bad practice, but not blockable in nature. The actions I am referring to is, firstly, the descriptions and secondly, the edit warring. That said, if the first stops, the likelyhood of the second is decreased to an extent. ~riley(talk) 07:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

~riley there is no support for subverting our blocking policy, which is all that others have indicated. This requires "An acknowledgement that the block was appropriate and a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated". Therefore we require Tm to acknowledge that he knew the consensus was to remove the inappropriate text and that he knew restoring it would be disruptive. There is no other way to shorten the block. He had a clear warning and chose to act regardless, and his subsequent text does not examine his mistake but instead focuses on attacking his opponent. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You can make this argument at a later time if you wish; I think we can all agree that the priority remains that the user in question does not intend to continue these actions. I recommend sitting back and waiting to see what he has to say in regards to my question. That said, this would not be a case of subverting the blocking policy. You have quoted the blocking policy only to your benefit, it can be argued (i.e. above) that the next line applies "An explanation of why the block is not appropriate based on this and other relevant policies and guidelines". It also states "will almost always apply" when describing an appropriate response, the lack of the word "must", "needs to", "requires" etc means you cannot argue that any specific thing is "required" and there are possibilities where it may not apply. Blocking of a long-term editor is not black and white, as clearly shown above. The same thing goes for unblocking. ~riley(talk) 09:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

User:~riley, I agree we should be flexible and not act like robots to policy. In fact I think we should not permit admins to block long term users without some prior discussion (except in some emergency) because I've seen too many admins do that in haste and do foolish things. I was responding to what appeared to be an unjustified leap in your rationale for unblocking Tm, which nobody had suggested, that we merely require a promise not to repeat. Our policy and consensus is clear that there needs to be an acceptance that they deserved the block and now know they did something wrong. I'm aware of the next line and it doesn't apply as there is no consensus that Tm's slow edit war on these files since May last year is in any way justified and users may be blocked for edit warring, particularly after being warned as here. The only argument with any strength is that it would have been better if another admin had blocked Tm, but that isn't a reason for unblock. The only thing Tm (and Fae) appears to be concerned with is that Jcb should be punished, which rather makes me suspect the whole thing is a setup, and the best thing for Commons would be for it to backfire and him remain blocked for the full duration. -- Colin (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how discussing unblock is an unjustified leap, especially when Ankry, Wikicology, Tuvalkin and Fæ have all either expressed support for unblock or block shortening. I think I was justified in opening the discussion of how we can move forward, which should be the goal here. Whether it be by unblocking or the block expiring on it's own, this user will be returning to editing sooner or later and as such, we need to find a solution for moving forward so that we can avoid this discussion again. Either way, we've both established attacking is not the option and I appreciate your collegiality. All the best, ~riley(talk) 21:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion with a blocked user about the block is in principle a good thing. It's good that in principle a blocked user can edit their own talkpage. In the past, issues with Tm have been resolved quickly this way several times. The block log shows several cases where blocking admin lifted the block after a short talk here, including one case in 2014 where I was the blocking/unblocking admin. Jcb (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I see nowhere in this discussion that Tm accepted that any edit, specifically the one Davey2010 pointed out, this one is inappropriate or shown a conciliatory or introspective attitude at all. There was a back and forth over what is a warning, what is a template, should templates be used and as Colin said "Jcb quotes this diff. You quote this diff....You were warned". For me if Tm had accept the mistake and agreed that it will not be repeated we all could have moved on. ~riley I deeply respect diplomats but you yourself asked "are you willing to agree to not repeat these actions?" and critically Tm has not said no. Until that changes actions certainly will not change. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right, nowhere in here has he accepted that his actions were inappropriate, a mistake etc. I love the dialogue but he hasn't been online since I asked my question and there has been 8 unneccassy back and forths in regards to me asking a simple question. Before we go on about what ifs and him "not saying no", why don't we all just hold our tongue's and wait to see what he has to say about it? ~riley(talk) 23:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I regret to learn that this discussion has continue over an extended period of time than necessary and I would suggest we wait for Tm to return before drawing any conclusion. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: warring against Jcb alone could be dismissed, but the problem is that Tm also warred against Ironholds, Moheen Reeyad (see Colin’s postings), and Acabashi. Moreover, in both instances Tm preferred to push his interests with sheer number of reverts rather to seek compromise via negotiations. Too many members to whom Tm showed disrespect, and too much disruption for a minute issue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi, please avoid pointing to evidence that is very old without explaining the timeline as context. Your remark about Ironholds stood out immediately for me, as they have not edited on this project for nearly 2 years. Logically nobody can edit war with someone who is absent. This is not a pattern of evidence that supports a claim that Tm has a behavioural problem, nor is it evidence that whatever happened a year ago resulted in a correct block, in the light of what happened in the block history. Please ensure any old evidence is marked clearly with dates and any associated context of later events. Without this, the large gaps of time are missed by the casual reader who may be mislead that this is all part of an active pattern rather than old history and they may miss Jcb's active and personal involvement before blocking Tm's account.

To be handled respectfully, evidence needs to be carefully analysed and neutrally presented, not cherry-picked with the objective of making predetermined allegations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

While "warred against" is technically wrong wrt Ironholds, he reverted the change Ironholds made. And made similar edits to the same series of images that reverted changes made by multiple other editors. This is an "active pattern" and not "old history" because what we see is a very slow edit war with multiple editors, where Tm returns to the images after a period and makes the same reverts that let him to AN last time. It is clear Tm was acting against consensus and without attempting to reach a consensus with those he disagreed with. There is a clear behavioural problem, which is apparent to all except it seems Fae. Tm needs to work harder to achieve consensus when he finds himself in dispute. A "one revert rule" is a good practice to follow for any editor. -- Colin (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect to Fæ, two-years-old evidence is not really “very old” for us old Wikimedians; compare to that case where mostly really old—> 8 years—and unspecific stuff was recalled to help with promulgation of gossip. As for neutrality, I was and largely remain impartial. Although the proposed restriction packet is mine, I do not care much whether will it be accepted or rejected; this is not my jihad certainly. Edit warring is not about number of edits in hour or day or week; it is about unwillingness to concede to opponent’s demands. Did Tm propose some compromise solution such as a special promotional gallery or collapsed text? He did not (note that Moheen’s and Acabashi’s stance was not necessarily any better, and Jcb’s was even worse). Also, I disagree with Colin about consensus. This protracted flame war shows that there is no consensus. We see an unredeemed minority viewpoint whose supporter—Tm—is not eager to build this consensus, resorting instead to ad Jcb argumentation to undermine credibility of opponents. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi, are there any other parties supporting Tm's edits to restore all the original text? Multiple parties have removed that text over time and multiple parties have repeatedly reverted Tm (not just Jcb). So there seems to be a consensus among everyone involved other than Tm that the full original text does not belong on Commons, and nobody in the above discussion appears to think it should. A consensus does not have to be unanimous -- plenty trolls on Wikipedia who make edits against consensus and who get their edits swiftly reverted. If it were just two parties involved, then I would agree they have failed to achieve a consensus, but we see multiple people at odds with Tm's viewpoint. In addition, the text is quite patently inappropriate for Commons per Commons:What Commons is not and our Educational-media-repository scope/purpose. We are not a blog and don't host blog posts. Jcb's communications on this issue have not been optimal either, but wrt these sets of images and their file-description-page contents, it is Tm alone who is causing trouble. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Several Commons community members are working on ways to integrate Wikidata in Wikimedia Commons. While this is not full-fledged structured data yet, this work helps to prepare for future conversion of data, and helps to understand how Wikidata and Commons can work better together.

We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Why do you persistently revert my correct version of this order to this incorrect old fantasy version? Do it looks like a order like on polish presidents website? No, so please revert it back to my draw. Br. Jakub Kaja (✉) 17:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jakubkaja: Upload your version under a new filename. Don´t do as you did last time, uploading a new version, move the name of the file, change the license and the authorship to you, as what you did is not the correct way of changing a file. Your version is completely different than the original one. Tm (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I know what I did. I replaced totally useless draw with something useful and my version is a correct one, in contrast to the old which isn't even similar to the original. If I'll take foto of some penis with wings attached on the cross as background and I'll upload it as "Order of the White Eagle", you will keep it as it is? I don't think so. Jakub Kaja (✉) 08:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

it seems that on September 6, 2017 you added lots of seemingly random PDF files to this category. At a glance, there doesn't seem to be a connection between the person and those files. Is there a particular reason you added them? Regards --Rosenzweigτ 16:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Thanks for the heads up. I moved these files, wrongly, when moving others to Category:Phil Hogan. ~I will revert the wrong moves. Tm (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! I've cleaned this category a bit by moving files to subcategories, but you put them all back. Could you explain why you want them there? (And should we put all other photos from other tournaments there as well?) Thanks! --spider (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fata Anik: You cannot download an image, taken by someone else, upload it to Flickr or Stockvault, and in the same day re-upload it to Wikimedia Commons and claim that the file is freely licensed, like you did in File:Maisoun Abou Assad.jpg. And to make things worst after someone else opened an deletion request on this file, changed the source of the file and deleted the deletion request warning from the filepage. You take someone else work and upload to a third party site and reupload it to Commons (all in the same day) and then even change the "source", when the file is up for deletion. You cannot take other people images, just because they are readily on the net and claim that the file is freely licensed. Tm (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fata Anik: Or in this case take a frame from a video made by someone else. Tm (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

For your information: Category:Rail_transport_in_Kota_Kinabalu intimates that there is rail transport available withing Kota Kinabalu. Actually, there isn't. The trains start from Tanjung Aru Station and run along the coast to Beaufort. Also, some of the rail cars you have tagged are not used for any transport purpose but only as exhibition objects or for spare parts. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hi Tm, please relax and remain calm. Deletions are not permanent and can easily be undeleted. Not everyone is perfect. Thank you.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@BevinKacon: It was you that started this all affair, but i´am not blaming you, as i know you acted in good faith. What disturbes me is Yann, an administrator, that should and has enough experience, should stop before speedy deleting around 700 files, in a deletion spree. The evidences were already in the links you provided, if he did made 5 minutes of reserch. Instead, after i´ve showed that he was wrong, he kept insisting that those files were copyright violations, refused to undete those already deleted, and started making conspiracy theories, despite the irrefutable evidence that i´ve shown already. Tm (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any help sorting the photos once the DR is closed & files restored.--BevinKacon (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment Read my irrefutable evidence on the deletion request above, and see that Lies Thru Lenses aka The Narratographer is the same as Dan Mullan/Pinnacle or Dan Bowen Photography or Dan Rocha. Will you admit your mistake? I was pinging to show how wrong you are. Undelete the images that you deleted, close the DR or ask another administrator to do it and next time be more diligent in your work, as you are one of the more experienced users and administrators and this kind of initial errors in someone with such experience is dificult but possible, but continuing in the same mistake is unthinkable. Tm (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Since our last newsletter, the Structured Data team has moved into designing and building prototypes for various features. The use of multilingual captions in the UploadWizard and on the file page has been researched, designed, discussed, and built out for use. Behind the scenes, back-end work on search is taking place and designs are being drawn up for the front-end. There will soon be specifications published for the use of the first Wikidata property on Commons, "Depicts," and a prototype is to be released to go along with that.

The first discussion on copyright and licensing with Commons was held in March. This was a "high level" discussion, there will be a consultation later this summer about the deeper mapping of copyright and licensing in a structured way.

We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Thanks for your current comments on the files where I had corrected the license to CC BY NC SA, since I could see no reason for the previous reversions. I will now follow your recommended procedure and nominate them for deletion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Secondarywaltz: Before opening any deletion requests, see User:Roumpf. where it says "Les photographies dont je suis l'auteur peuvent se retrouver sous une licence différente sur cette page : http://olouf.fr" in french, or in english "The photographs of which I am the author can be under a different license on this page: http://olouf.fr". Olouf is the same name that appears in the exif of the images in question. Tm (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That is not explained in the uploaded files or verified by OLOUF. There should really be a covering OTRS for those. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

@Jcb: The other user is the one that is trying to edit warring, in many images, calling executed polish hostages as criminals and murderers, polish soldiers as partisans, trying to equate some polish kapos as equals as german SS oversighters in the same concentration camp. See Austrianbird edits and them see why i keep reverting this vandalism. Cheers. Tm (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You are both edit warring and I warned you both. Use talk pages for discussions, not edit summaries while reverting. Jcb (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jcb: Please see the other user edits and you will see that it wasnt me that was edit warring. The fact that someone comparing executed polish hostages to murderers, culprits and criminals, is a very good reason to suspect the real reasons behind any of his editions related with this subject. Thats why i reverted his edits, as he was trying to make highlight the nationality of the executed kapos (and maybe they deserved being punished, but thats besides the point), when there is not a mention of the nationality of the executed SS personal is a bit suspicious. Even more when he calls Armia Krajowa, partisans, when they have clear "distinctive signs visible at the distance", like the sign in the headgear and military uniforms and gear. Tm (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the file mentioned, I saw you also reverting 4 times at File:Payment receipt 5-3350.jpg without explanation and the talk page is red. I saw also that you reverted their message to your user talk page rather than writing a response below it. Both actions are also edit warring. Don't do it. You are perfectly aware of the rules. Jcb (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please allow me to thank you for protecting this project from a person who - thank to the our administration's indifference - try to promote the nazi-style language and point of view.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Tm was clearly acting in good faith. This is a highly controversial topic, in the light of the "Polish death camp" controversy. If images are being subject to rapid changes without consensus, I suggest we look to protect all related historic photographs, and their descriptions, until a wider consensus is established... if anyone wishes to make such a proposal. --Fæ (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tm: Please stop responding in any way to Austrianbird. In the light of their recent ranty posting on this page, I am raising the case to COM:ANU for action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for transferring several thousand photographs of English churches in Wikimedia Commons. Many of them are good images and will be useful.

However, There are thousands of churches in England, and on Commons a large proportion of them now have individual categories. For example, for the Church of England alone Commons has images of at least 441 churches in Suffolk and at least 619 churches in Norfolk. Therefore placing 1,698 files in the vague category Category:Churches in Suffolk and 2,075 files in the equally vague Category:Churches in Norfolk, England, instead of sorting them into the categories for individual churches, is somewhat unhelpful.

It would be much more helpful if you wold sort those 3,773 files into the categories for their individual churches. And if you transfer any more files of churches to Commons, it would be helpful if you were to categorise them precisely too.

I realise this is more work, and much slower, than just placing thousands of files in one loose supercategory. But it is much more helpful to people who search Commons for images of precise subjects.

Many of Commons' images of churches in England used to be very poorly categorised. I have spent the last several years categorising them properly, and creating many of the categories that they needed. I was close to completing this task until you transferred 3,773 files into just two large supercategories. I have no wish to start all over again. Please help your fellow-contributors by categorising those files as precisely as possible.

Thankyou again for your contribution, and thankyou in advance for your understanding. Motacilla (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment@Motacilla: Less than 24 hours passed from my uploads. And yes, i will move these images to proper categories, like i did last week to around 3500 more images, but it takes time, and i´am not 24/7 on Commons. Tm (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, it werent 3500, but more in the region of 5-6k images. Tm (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hi Tm, as you can see in Category:Germany, this is a main category requiring diffusion. As many pictures and media files as possible should be moved into appropriate subcategories. Still you added many files from Panoramio to this category. These come with coordinates that allow for very accurate localization. Adding them to Category:Germany just is an unnecessary intermediate step that could easily be avoided without much difficulty. It doesn't save any work, all it basically does is drive up your edit count. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tyler de Noche: No need to ask for forgiveness. When you have a duplicate, just mark the the file that was last uploaded, as an exact duplicate of the first upload. The problem with flickr is that flickr2commons uploads a lot of exact duplicates, when in previous years it didn't, but don't know why has happened why this reversion of functionality. So the main responsibility is of the software, not the uploaders. Thanks anyway for spotting some uploads by me as duplicates, as they were uploaded after another user did the same first. Tm (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hello. Just to point out that File:QueenbdayRAH210418-25 (27885303238) (cropped).jpg is tagged with eleven celebrity names, but there's only one person in shot (and I've no idea who it is). Looks like this was a problem with tagging on the original photo album on Flickr, but I'm not sure how best to fix it. The same goes for a lot of other QueenbdayRAH210418 photos that you ported across. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

That is not Kelly Marie Tran! She didn't attend the "Beautiful Boy" premiere, she had her own film premiere "Sorry For Your Loss" to attend. Please fix all files, thanks! --H8149 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Grumpy Cat over 6th at SXSW 2014--2 (15813428791).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Can I assume you're done with this now and reinstate my category removals? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, several images are of people with partially clothed removed and underwear and so are partially nude. Tm (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

If they are topless or bottomless they are partially nude. Underwear is clothing, so wearing underwear means they are not nude or partially nude. You seemed to understand this when User:A.Savin made this change and this change. Why did you not change those ones back? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, what we have is an administrator that has an big history of blocking other users when they are in disagreement, making unproven accusations of sockpuppetry, and i have better things to do then to give a "reason" to said administrator to use the block button to silence someone that has critized him about his attitudes, has blocked me without reason previously (see my archived talkpages). And wearing underwear is partial nudity, using transparencies or fishnets that shows the breasts is still partial nude as this kind of photos can get you banned by Facebook, Instagram, or having said images classified as restricted in Flickr. Tm (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that image is described as partially nude because the model is probably topless. This isn't Facebbok or Instagram. I'm talking about what the words mean, not what the rules are on social networks. Nudity means not wearing clothes. Whether or not you can see through the clothing has nothing to do with nudity. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

"Nudity means not wearing clothes", aka not wearing not a single piece of cloth. Then what is partial nudity? Isn't it wearing some pieces of cloth, but with some nudity. Also, why then transparencies, where we see genitalia or full exposed breasts can be considered indecent exposure and\or public nudity in several countries, by being partially nude but nude none the less? Also being topless behind fishnets is partially nude or showing your male genitalia but wearing fishnets is partial or even total nudity. For sake of Try to get on the street wearing an fishnet but being a female in topless or a female\male showing genitalia and you will be arrested in several countries for public nudity and\or indecent exposure. And Facebook, Instagram and Flickr apply common USA standards of nudity and partially nudity, whatever you think (like it or not) on their acts related to nudity. Tm (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with social networks or local laws about exposing particular body parts. @Jcb: can you help now? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

So you have no arguments and so try to appeal to an administrator. The fact is that partial nudity is what i stated above, dozens of users created this categories or categorized images to that categories, per what they depict, and yet you, for an example, try to pass Category:Nude or partially nude males with fishnet tights as being as having non nudity images images of men in full nudity, covering the genitalia only with their hands, or an image [[:File:Dasha_(24731981101).jpg|of an women in topless, only covered in a fishnet bodystocking as "Neither nude nor partially nude. Or topless". It tells of what you think is partial nudity and full nudity. Tm (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(EC)I work as a volunteer with teenage boys every Saturday night. If they get hot from running around and from fighting with pillows and they remove some clothing to continue in their underwear, we will have to tell them quickly to get fully dressed again, because if somebody from outside comes in we will have serious trouble, and we will have to explain why our visitors are running around 'partially nude', they will call it that way. Jcb (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. In the context of Wikimedia Commons do you believe that a woman wearing only underwear or a bikini means she is partially nude? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I started a Village Pump discussion about the meaning on "partially nude" here on Commons. I already know your opinion on this, but I think it would be helpful if you participated in the Village Pump discussion. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Great pics, but please don't dump them in Aircraft expecting other people to do your donkey work. Put them in the appropriate categories when you upload them!!--Petebutt (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

We are currently planning the first GLAM pilot projects that will use structured data on Wikimedia Commons. One project has already started: the Swedish Heritage Board researches and develops a prototype tool to provide improved metadata (translations, data additions...) from Wikimedia Commons back to the source institution. Read the project brief.

The documentation for batch uploads of files to Wikimedia Commons will be improved in 2019, as part of preparing for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons. To prepare, the GLAM team at the Wikimedia Foundation wants to understand better which types of documentation you already use, and how you like to learn new GLAM-Wiki skills and knowledge. Fill in a short survey to provide input!